Randomized trial demonstrates that an internet- and mobile-based intervention reduces subclinical anxiety and depression in adults, highlighting the scalable efficacy of automated guidance.
INTRODUCTION: Limited research exists on intervention efficacy for comorbid subclinical anxiety and depressive disorders, despite their common co-occurrence. Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) are promising to reach individuals facing subclinical symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a transdiagnostic and self-tailored IMI in reducing subclinical anxiety and depressive symptom severity with either individualized (IG-IMI) or automated (AG-IMI) guidance compared to a waitlist control group with care-as-usual access (WLC). METHODS: Participants included 566 adults with subclinical anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 5) and/or depressive (CES-D ≥16) symptoms, who did not meet criteria for a full-syndrome depressive or anxiety disorder. In a three-arm randomized clinical trial, participants were randomized to a cognitive behavioral 7-session IMI plus booster session with IG-IMI (n = 186) or AG-IMI (n = 189) or WLC (n = 191). Primary outcomes included observer-rated anxiety (HAM-A) and depressive (QIDS) symptom severity 8 weeks after randomization assessed by blinded raters via telephone. Follow-up outcomes at 6 and 12 months are reported. RESULTS: Symptom severity was significantly lower with small to medium effects in IG-IMI (anxiety: d = 0.45, depression: d = 0.43) and AG-IMI (anxiety: d = 0.31, depression: d = 0.32) compared to WLC. No significant differences emerged between guidance formats in primary outcomes. There was a significant effect in HAM-A after 6 months favoring AG-IMI. On average, participants completed 85.38% of IG-IMI and 77.38% of AG-IMI. CONCLUSIONS: A transdiagnostic, self-tailored IMI can reduce subclinical anxiety and depressive symptom severity, but 12-month long-term effects were absent. Automated guidance holds promise for enhancing the scalability of IMIs in broad prevention initiatives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zarski et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: